...by their fruit...

[quatona]

Some of the more recent discussions here (Christians justifying genocide, Christians mutually justifying their morality by their doctrine and their doctrine by their morality, etc.) brought the bible quote "By their fruit you will recognize them" to mind.

Here it is, in context:


Matthew 7:15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

No, instead of explaining the various problems I see with this statement I will summarize them in a simple question:

Uhm, ok. But how do we tell a good fruit from a bad one?

Well, one additional question:
Yesterday I discussed with Gardarene whether we can conclude from the behaviour of the self-professed teacher on the accuracy of the teaching (with me holding the position "No, we can´t").
In view of "By their fruits..." being part of Christian doctrine - do I have to concede that Gardarene has a point, at least when it comes to Christianity?

 

[juvenissun]

Uhm, ok. But how do we tell a good fruit from a bad one?

You do not know what is good and what is bad. So why do you ask this meaningless question?

Good or bad is evaluated against a standard. In Christianity, the standard is God. That is how would a Christian (not you) tell what is a good fruit and what is a bad fruit.

 

[quatona]

You do not know what is good and what is bad. So why do you ask this meaningless question?

When I don´t know what´s good and what´s bad it makes a lot of sense to ask how to tell good from bad, don´t you think? It´s actually the most self-suggesting question.

But kudos for being consistent and right away starting with a veiled ad hominem. That´s your fruit?

On another note let me try to explain something to you which many of you guys can´t seem to grasp:
It is possible to explore a worldview/doctrine from within its tenets without superimposing your own paradigms upon it. I understand that you are incapable of doing this, but that doesn´t mean others must be incapable of doing it, too.
This, btw., also answers the question that inevitably will come up sooner or later in any thread: Why are you even here?

Good or bad is evaluated against a standard. In Christianity, the standard is God. That is how would a Christian (not you) tell what is a good fruit and what is a bad fruit.

Yes, that´s all fine and well. I understand that.

What I don´t understand:

1. The sentence is supposed to tell you Christians (not me! ) how to tell a false teacher/prophet from a true teacher/prophet - namely by the quality of their fruit.
2. You tell me that you (not me ) are to tell the quality of the fruit by comparing it to God. Which means you (not me ) already need to have the knowledge of God in order to do that.
3. Question:
So since - in order to apply this advice - you (not me ) already need the knowledge of God: why aren´t you (not me ) advised to simply compare their teachings with God right away (without taking the detour about holding their fruit against God and from there moving to judging them and their teachings)?

4. Or is "fruit" actually meant to be a metaphore for their teachings (not: their behaviour)?
In which case my question would be:
If you (not me ) already have the knowledge of God - why do you (not me ) even need a teacher/prophet?

You get the idea: All I am asking is "How is this method supposed to work, and isn´t it actually a bit redundant?"

 

[juvenissun]

When I don´t know what´s good and what´s bad it makes a lot of sense to ask how to tell good from bad, don´t you think? It´s actually the most self-suggesting question.

But kudos for being consistent and right away starting with a veiled ad hominem. That´s your fruit?

On another note let me try to explain something to you which many of you guys can´t seem to grasp:
It is possible to explore a worldview/doctrine from within its tenets without superimposing your own paradigms upon it. I understand that you are incapable of doing this, but that doesn´t mean others must be incapable of doing it, too.

That is fine.

If so, in order to make your question meaningful, you should define good and bad First. Then people can do the evaluation.

If you do not know the definitions of the terms in that doctrine, then you should ask the definitions first, rather than use one hidden in your mind (which is none). Then ask how to make judgement. In my reply to you, I gave the definitions. So, what you say now? If you do not accept my definitions, then either give yours, or pull the poorly defined question.

 

[discipulus]

When I don´t know what´s good and what´s bad it makes a lot of sense to ask how to tell good from bad, don´t you think? It´s actually the most self-suggesting question.

But kudos for being consistent and right away starting with a veiled ad hominem. That´s your fruit?

On another note let me try to explain something to you which many of you guys can´t seem to grasp:
It is possible to explore a worldview/doctrine from within its tenets without superimposing your own paradigms upon it. I understand that you are incapable of doing this, but that doesn´t mean others must be incapable of doing it, too.
This, btw., also answers the question that inevitably will come up sooner or later in any thread: Why are you even here?



Yes, that´s all fine and well. I understand that.

What I don´t understand:

1. The sentence is supposed to tell you Christians (not me! ) how to tell a false teacher/prophet from a true teacher/prophet - namely by the quality of their fruit.
2. You tell me that you (not me ) are to tell the quality of the fruit by comparing it to God. Which means you (not me ) already need to have the knowledge of God in order to do that.
3. Question:
So since - in order to apply this advice - you (not me ) already need the knowledge of God: why aren´t you (not me ) advised to simply compare their teachings with God right away (without taking the detour about holding their fruit against God and from there moving to judging them and their teachings)?

4. Or is "fruit" actually meant to be a metaphore for their teachings (not: their behaviour)?
In which case my question would be:
If you (not me ) already have the knowledge of God - why do you (not me ) even need a teacher/prophet?

You get the idea: All I am asking is "How is this method supposed to work, and isn´t it actually a bit redundant?"

i'm sorry if this is the wrong place to place this but i think to answer your question we would be helped out if we looked at what happened in the scripture leading up to this point where Jesus said this.

I was always taught in order to better understand whats going on in the bible to read it like you would any other book first. so the gospel of matthew is a book in itself. so if we read from the beginning up to this point we can better understand what Jesus is talking about and stuff and who He is talking to and why He says what He says.

Do you agree? Or am i just wrong?

 

[Justaman0000]

Well, according to Paul's teachings in Galatians 5:22-23 He states that the fruit of the Spirit is Love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. So if someone comes to you exercising a faith or spirit that opposes these things then they are false.

 

[quatona]

That is fine.

If so, in order to make your question meaningful, you should define good and bad First. Then people can do the evaluation.

What? Are you saying that when God gave this advice he silently meant to advice people to base their evaluations of the fruits of Christian teachers on quatona´s definition of good and evil? What were people supposed to do before I was born, then?

You still don´t get it, do you? I am asking you what God may have meant by this statement.

If you do not know the definitions of the terms in that doctrine, then you should ask the definitions first

That was the very subject of my question.

Then ask how to make judgement.

That was my next question.

In my reply to you, I gave the definitions.

And I accepted them and worked from there.

So, what you say now?

It´s in my previous post.

If you do not accept my definitions, then either give yours, or pull the poorly defined question.

I did accept your definition, and asked questions based on this definition.

You needn´t answer them, but if all you have come here should possibly be to pick a fight with me: I am not available for that.

 

[quatona]

Well, according to Paul's teachings in Galatians 5:22-23 He states that the fruit of the Spirit is Love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. So if someone comes to you exercising a faith or spirit that opposes these things then they are false.

Thank you for considering my question and for responding, Justaman.

So, for my discussion with does Gardarene this mean: He actually had a point? We do can conclude from the attitude and moral integrity (or lack thereof) of Christians on the accuracy of their teachings?

Or to say it quite boldly: If a self-professed Christian is lacking the above mentioned qualities, we are justified in rejecting his teachings with reference to his character flaws?

 

[quatona]

i'm sorry if this is the wrong place to place this but i think to answer your question we would be helped out if we looked at what happened in the scripture leading up to this point where Jesus said this.

I was always taught in order to better understand whats going on in the bible to read it like you would any other book first. so the gospel of matthew is a book in itself. so if we read from the beginning up to this point we can better understand what Jesus is talking about and stuff and who He is talking to and why He says what He says.

Do you agree? Or am i just wrong?

Well, generally speaking I think that´s excellent advice, and one thing I was hoping for was that people might point me to those earlier passages that they feel shed light on the issue.

 

[discipulus]

Well, generally speaking I think that´s excellent advice, and one thing I was hoping for was that people might point me to those earlier passages that they feel shed light on the issue.

 

[Justaman0000]

Thank you for considering my question and for responding, Justaman.

So, for my discussion with does Gardarene this mean: He actually had a point? We do can conclude from the attitude and moral integrity (or lack thereof) of Christians on the accuracy of their teachings?

Or to say it quite boldly: If a self-professed Christian is lacking the above mentioned qualities, we are justified in rejecting his teachings with reference to his character flaws?

A lot of people that I find running around the world proclaiming that they are Christians, usually don't know even half of what Christ taught, let alone following his teachings. Therefore they aren't really Christians, since Christian is a word meaning "follower of Christ". And anyone following Christ, or calling themselves Christians, if lacking of the before mentioned fruits of the spirit are probably still maturing and growing in Christ.

 

[Paradoxum]

You do not know what is good and what is bad. So why do you ask this meaningless question?

I can't speak for quatona, but I know what good and bad is, and I have more moral clarity now than I had as a Christian (not that I was a bad Christian anyway).

Good or bad is evaluated against a standard. In Christianity, the standard is God. That is how would a Christian (not you) tell what is a good fruit and what is a bad fruit.

Saying God is the standard isn't good enough, and I would think philosophical Christians would also recognize the problems with leaving the answer there.

If God is the moral standard, what do you mean when you say God is good? Do you just mean that God is God? Why then choose to be like God rather than anyone else who acts like themselves?

ie: Why is God's nature called good?

 

[juvenissun]

Saying God is the standard isn't good enough, and I would think philosophical Christians would also recognize the problems with leaving the answer there.

If God is the moral standard, what do you mean when you say God is good? Do you just mean that God is God? Why then choose to be like God rather than anyone else who acts like themselves?

ie: Why is God's nature called good?

Good question.

In this case, we need to understand God. What God likes and dislikes. How do we do that? That is another question.

 

[quatona]

A lot of people that I find running around the world proclaiming that they are Christians, usually don't know even half of what Christ taught, let alone following his teachings. Therefore they aren't really Christians, since Christian is a word meaning "follower of Christ". And anyone following Christ, or calling themselves Christians, if lacking of the before mentioned fruits of the spirit are probably still maturing and growing in Christ.

Thank you again for answering so straightforward.
I understand what you are saying, and it makes sense to me.

What I would like to ask you:
Do you think that - beyond those convincing explanations you give - this sentence is meant to be practical, applicable advice?
IOW: If, e.g., their delivery reveals (i.e. that we can tell from their fruit) that they are but "still maturing and growing" - what are we supposed to do? Take their teachings with a grain of salt? Ignore them? Help them grow?

Second question:
Do you think that this advice was directed to self-professing Christians exclusively (an insider tip, if you will ), or is it also an advice to non-Christians?

Sorry, but while I am thinking often new question arise, so here´s another one:

What if we detect all those qualities in a teacher who isn´t a self-professed Christian? Would it be advisable to ascribe his qualities to the metaphysical idea that he himself teaches (i.e. conclude: these are good fruit, so his teachings must be right), or are we to conclude that he is promoting Christian doctrine without knowing it (i.e. conclude that he accidentally got it right, but unfortunately ascribed it to a wrong source)?

TIA

 

[juvenissun]

What? Are you saying that when God gave this advice he silently meant to advice people to base their evaluations of the fruits of Christian teachers on quatona´s definition of good and evil? What were people supposed to do before I was born, then?

You still don´t get it, do you? I am asking you what God may have meant by this statement.


That was the very subject of my question.

That was my next question.

And I accepted them and worked from there.

It´s in my previous post.

I did accept your definition, and asked questions based on this definition.

You needn´t answer them, but if all you have come here should possibly be to pick a fight with me: I am not available for that.

OK, then the question is clear.

First: the Bible is God's word to Christians. So, judge good fruit and bad fruit by the words in the Bible. You may test me on that by describing a fruit to me (which could be a quite difficult job, in some cases).

Second: ...

 

[quatona]

When I created this thread I had no idea where it might go.

I was very surprised to see one particular poster immediately reacting very defensive, as though he sensed that this might lead to very thin ice for beliefs he holds.

Now, what do I know? Maybe it will lead there, but I swear this was not my intention.

Originally, the question that came to me was a very simple, technical one about the method suggested here.

It´s not a perfect analogy but it may give you a better idea as to where the question came from:

I have a lot of guitars and change guitar strings quite often. So I am looking for a reliable institute that tests the quality of guitar strings. I get the advice: you can tell the reliability of such institutes by checking if the strings they recommend are really good.
And I´d think to myself: So what do I even need to consult these institutes for? With or without them - my method would be exactly the same: I am left with my own judgement.

 

[quatona]

OK, then the question is clear.

First: the Bible is God's word to Christians.

Premise accepted for purposes of this conversation.

So, judge good fruit and bad fruit by the words in the Bible.

Ok, so the bible advises people to judge teachers by comparing them to what the bible says, right?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but isn´t that a bit redundant or even tautological - seeing that the person addressed is obviously already assumed to consult the bible as authorithative (or else he wouldn´t even accept this advice, in the first place)?

But what confuses me even more:
If the person addressed can be trusted to interprete the bible correctly and consequently judge biblical teachers - what does he even need those teachers for? He has the authoritative bible, he can interprete it correctly - so what else does he need?

You may test me on that by describing a fruit to me (which could be a quite difficult job, in some cases).

Well, I am still not quite sure what "fruit" stands for. In your interpretation, is it the teaching itself, or, as Justaman suggested, rather the attitude and the character qualities of the teacher?

Thus, taking the example at hand:
If Christian A tells the Christian student that "fruit" refers to the attitude and behaviour of the teacher, and Christian B tells the same Christian student that "fruit" stands for the teachings of the teacher - how is the Christian student be supposed to tell the good teacher from the bad teacher by applying the advice "You can tell them by their fruit!"?

 

[juvenissun]

What if we detect all those qualities in a teacher who isn´t a self-professed Christian? Would it be advisable to ascribe his qualities to the metaphysical idea that he himself teaches (i.e. conclude: these are good fruit, so his teachings must be right), or are we to conclude that he is promoting Christian doctrine without knowing it (i.e. conclude that he accidentally got it right, but unfortunately ascribed it to a wrong source)?

TIA

All these situations apparently happened to all people who can see them, Christians as well as non-Christians. To some particularly ambiguous fruits, which is described by vision or language (may or may not by the true process), could be seen as good by some Christians and be seen as bad by some other Christians. Statistically, the result may not be distinguishable from the views given by non-Christians.

However, a key question should be: After one decided a fruit is good or bad, then what? The answer would then be critical to the welfare of the person. And the reaction and consequence could be dramatically different between a Christian and a non-Christian.

After all that, one would have to go back to the beginning and reconsider: based on what did I judge the good or bad of the fruit?

 

[juvenissun]

Ok, so the bible advises people to judge teachers by comparing them to what the bible says, right?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but isn´t that a bit redundant or even tautological - seeing that the person addressed is obviously already assumed to consult the bible as authorithative (or else he wouldn´t even accept this advice, in the first place)?

But what confuses me even more:
If the person addressed can be trusted to interprete the bible correctly and consequently judge biblical teachers - what does he even need those teachers for? He has the authoritative bible, he can interprete it correctly - so what else does he need?

Who said a Christian needs any human teacher? A Christian teacher provides some useful references. The decision and the judgement is still given by the individual. This is always the case, no exception. In fact, this is true to everyone, Christian or not.

One who studied the Bible more, would come to a "better" judgement to the fruit.

 

[juvenissun]

Well, I am still not quite sure what "fruit" stands for. In your interpretation, is it the teaching itself, or, as Justaman suggested, rather the attitude and the character qualities of the teacher?

Thus, taking the example at hand:
If Christian A tells the Christian student that "fruit" refers to the attitude and behaviour of the teacher, and Christian B tells the same Christian student that "fruit" stands for the teachings of the teacher - how is the Christian student be supposed to tell the good teacher from the bad teacher by applying the advice "You can tell them by their fruit!"?

The fruit means a feature, a production, or a consequence. It is rare to refer a human as a fruit.

If one is patient, then people will see the "fruit" of patience on him. Yes, there could be successful deceptions. But, that is a different problem.